#12 in a series of background briefs

Why not label “fake” images instead of “real” images?

(Short answer: Because such labels are unrealistic and unworkable.)

  • • Numerous labels have been proposed for identifying “fake” images

    From the numerous Photoshop controversies of the 1990s...

    . . . to social-media body-image concerns of the 2010s...

    . . . to the alarm over AI-fabricated images in the 2020s...

    . . . every prominent attempt to address the “Holy Grail” challenge of alerting the public to undetectable manipulations has proposed applying a warning label to images that are what the public calls “fake.”

    Three examples of proposed legislation

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • • But TTG takes the opposite course, labeling “real” images

    . . . because there would be multiple problems with requiring use of a disclosure label that declared “This image is fake,” as enumerated below.

    TTG never uses the term “real” except in quotation marks

  • 1. A “This is fake” label would depend for its success on compliance from the persons who are most inclined to deceive.

    (It is hard to picture a punishment strong enough to deter anyone bent on deception.)

    Furthermore, millions of image creators who do not mean to deceive would also have no interest in using a “This is fake” label.

    History suggests that those creators would likely resist telling viewers when an image that looks like an undoctored photo is anything but that.

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • 2. There would be no legal entity that could enforce the use of a “This is fake” label except within a small subsection of the world.

    Images have no national borders, and citizens of most countries see many images from other countries.

    (As explained in #3 below, a disclosure label would be pointless unless it was universally used.)

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • 3. If a “This is fake” label is not used by every image-creator worldwide who creates what the public calls “fake” images...

    . . . then any selective use of such a label would benefit those who create “fake” images but who don’t apply that label.

    The more people who used such a label, the more that non-users of the label would benefit.

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • 4. If everyone relied on a “This is fake” label to alert them to possible deception, viewers wouldn’t know what to think when they saw an unlabeled photo.

    (This is also covered in FAQ #102)

    Consider an example of the controversial matter of using AIFI:

    Suppose a viewer lives in the U.S. — where the AI industry has pledged to watermark AI-fabricated images — and the viewer comes across an image that they strongly suspect contains AIFI but it has no “This is AI” watermark.

    The absence of a “This is AI” watermark might mean the image is not AI-fabricated.

    But the absence of a “This is AI” watermark also could mean that the image is AI-fabricated but

    • it came from a source outside the U.S.; or

    • the watermark had been removed; or

    • the use of AIFI wasn't extensive enough (e.g., it was only used for upsizing the image) to trigger a “This is AI” watermark, as explained in #6 below; or

    • the creator of the image was not inclined to attach a watermark.

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • 5. Even before AIFI came along, it would have been very difficult to reach a broad consensus on exactly which images warranted a “This is fake” label.

    Most advanced photographers could quickly point out multiple concerns with the French and Norwegian legislative initiatives referenced in the page linked above (the U.K. proposal has not yet been formally drafted).

    The problem is that all digital photos — including all news photos — undergo some kinds of “manipulations” (including some inside the device or camera, before the photographer reviews the image on the screen).

    It would be extremely difficult to identify which specific manipulations contribute to the social problems the laws intend to address.

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks

  • 6. AIFI is used in too many different ways to be covered by a one-size-fits-all “This is AI” label—

    —and creating variations of such a label would be forbiddingly complex.

    The myriad ways AIFI is already being employed by millions of amateur and hobbyist photographers is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of AIFI among those who are clamoring for AIFI-disclosure labels.

    Recent pledges by AI companies to in the future add a watermark on plaifis will not address the capabilities involved in aigmenting photographs.

    A. Any AIFI-disclosure label that covers full plaifis — i.e., images that are wholly created on a computer, without a camera — would likely not be adopted by millions of photographers who use AIFI to aigment photos in what they regard as “minor” ways (for example, to fill in tiny threads in bird feathers when upsizing photographs).

    B. Requiring AIFI-disclosure labels only on 100%- computer-generated plaifis would not produce the desired outcome of alerting the public to potential deception. It is easy to insert a small photographically recorded item into a plaifi, thereby exempting the image from any full-plaifis-only labeling requirement.

    C. With regard to the second part of point #6 (above), creating multiple varieties of disclosure labels to cover different levels of AIFI — e.g., plaifis; plaifis with an inserted photo-based element (see “B” above); aigmenting a primarily photo-based image — would result in widespread confusion. Any such labels would likely be ignored on a large scale.

  • 7. The implication behind the question at the top of this page is no longer accurate.

    As AI-fabricated images fill roles that photographs used to fill, the public is learning to not assume that photo-like images are “Real unless labeled fake.”

    See also #619 and 620.

    TTG never uses the term “fake” except in quotation marks